[Closed] Computer monitors

Pretty normal res for that size, and you can always shrink your icons, and shrink browser text etc (ctrl and scroll mouse wheel)

If you are going to spend more i'd probably go 27 inch

[url= https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=2560+x+1440+27+inch+monitor&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b&gfe_rd=cr&ei=GCPpV-2UDfHW8gefkZqYCg#q=2560+x+1440+27+inch+monitor&tbs=vw:l,mr:1,cat:305,pdtr1:718959%7C721179,price:1,ppr_max:300,pdtr0:718824%7C27%2427,ss:9,p_ord:p&tbm=shop&spd=3431563080730874125 ]something like this [/url]

's what sells, isn't it. It's really frustrating especially in the laptop world, I've got good eyesight and am reasonably practiced with a mouse and so don't need icons two inches wide with pixels the size of my ZX Spectrum.

For comparison, 1920x1080 is lower than that Nvidia tablet we were discussing earlier. That's 1920x1200, on an 8" screen. 😯

I prefer 1920x1200 - in 24 inch usually.

Need to spend about £200 new - https://www.amazon.co.uk/Dell-UltraSharp-U2412M-inch-Monitor/dp/B005JN9310

+1 for the Dell above.
I need to get a second one

My new Surace Pro 4 is 2736x1824 on a 10 inch tablet which gives 267dpi. Not so long ago laser printers were 300dpi 😯

Any reason not to buy a £90 one for general usage?

I've got a 1920x1080 22" monitor. Its a good size for me and it was very cheap. Resolution is OK. Nice and crisp for looking at images and videos. Fine for CAD work. Might start to get limiting if you are editing high res videos or doing a lot of photoshop and want to work in smaller windows. There is quite a step up in price to get a few more pixels. Not worth it to me but I'm sure it is for some.

If you are going to spend more i'd probably go 27 inch

My main work screen (the one I'm reading this on) is 27" at 2560x1440.
It's also IPS, low-Blue light, no-flicker and 100% sRGB.

http://www.benq.com/product/monitor/GW2765HT/features/

Makes sense to spend a reasonable amount of cash on something you stare at all day.

Only if the extra cash is worth it.

I doubt my wife would even notice spending four times as much tbh.

Desktop PC monitors, over the years, with more people buying laptops - have mostly catered for gamers which historically have been run at 1920x1080. Most of the development has gone into things like gsync, 100hz monitors and fast response times - 1440p, UWQHD and 4k are only just starting to become more popular in computer monitors.

I had a 24" 1920 x 1080, nice but fancied a bigger one.
Looked at 27" 2560 x 1440 but had to zoom in most of the time as stuff too small, had to sit closer.
Ended up with a 32" 2560 x 1440 from [url= http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824014372 ]Benq[/url]. Everything the same size (dpi) as the old 24", just more screen to play with, weren't cheap.

Looked at 27" 2560 x 1440 but had to zoom in most of the time as stuff too small

True enough - I read STW at 170% zoom, otherwise it's just a tiny strip down the centre of the monitor.

But it's not a major hassle and it means there is lots of screen estate to play with when I need it.

(I also have two smaller monitors for email, reference documents, YouTube etc)

+2 on dell ultrasharps

weren't cheap

Reckon your cash would've been better spent at Specsavers. (-:

That 27" screen is pretty much same resolution depth (PPI - pixels per inch) as the 15" work laptop I'm using now, and considerably lower than my 17" home laptop. I wish this one was higher.

I also have two smaller monitors for email, reference documents, YouTube etc

Depending on usage, there's a compelling argument for multi-screens. For work certainly I'd prefer twin screens rather than one single big daft one.

Nah, a single big daft one + two other screens is much more betterer 😀

(I work with VMs a lot so it is usually easier to have it running on a dedicated screen).

Looked at 27" 2560 x 1440 but had to zoom in most of the time as stuff too small

I run everything scaled to 200% on my Surface (the default). Almost everything looks fine, including webpages. Only things that look wrong are the context menus in Edge for some reason - they look huge.

If I put it down to 100% it's hilarously tiny.

3200 x 1800 here on a 13" - run it at 100% scaling most of the time, "hilariously tiny" sums it up nicely.
Wish I could get anywhere near that for desktop.

I thought you worked in IT so you are questioning what 1920x1080 looks like on a 24 ?

For a 24 you would be better lookig for a 1920x1200 monitor, which is much more workable. Samsung do then amongst others.

2560x1440 on a 27 is ok, I use it at work and at home, but some other devs complained that it had too small a pitch, so they use 2 x 1920x1200 instead of my 2560x1440 and 1920x1200.

I'm a consultant so use almost exclusively 1920 on a laptop 🙂

Although thinking about it most of the desktop monitors I see probably are 1920 aren't they?

Nah, a single big daft one + two other screens is much more betterer

Agreed, but gonna need a bigger desk.

3200 x 1800 here on a 13" - run it at 100% scaling most of the time, "hilariously tiny" sums it up nicely.
Wish I could get anywhere near that for desktop.

Resolution envy here, brother. What the hell are you running?

I thought you worked in IT so you are questioning what 1920x1080 looks like on a 24 ?

As I said before, you can do that on an 8" screen.

This is like a conversation about chainrings and rear cogs without mentioning gear inches.
It's all about pixel pitch and viewing distance.

I use a 27" 1920x1080 so I think I win the lowest PPI war, but it's at a distance so it's fine. Up close on a desk it's poor. 1920x1080 is fine for 24", you aren't going to get anything better for that budget. I'd highly recommend getting an IPS monitor for a wee bit more.

1920x1080 is fine for 24",

I'd be disappointed at that in a 17" panel. Not to be willy-waving but my 17" laptop is 1920x1200 and it's about right (for me).

I'd highly recommend getting an IPS monitor for a wee bit more.

Yep that's what I was driving at earlier. Size and quantity of pixels is only one part of the equation. Quality is the other.
IPS, high contrast, fast refresh, flicker-free backlight, full sRGB gamut all matter too.

I had to get something 2560x1440 any thing else just looks crap.
£250 gets you a 27" - http://www.novatech.co.uk/products/monitors/amdfreesync/b2783qsu-b1.html

Brand was used by my last company for touch screens so knew it was decent. Can't fault it.

IPS, high contrast, fast refresh, flicker-free backlight, full sRGB gamut all matter too.

For document writing?

Resolution envy here, brother. What the hell are you running?

I bought my lad an Asus UX305 for uni that runs at that resolution

[url= http://www.johnlewis.com/asus-zenbook-ux305-ultrabook-intel-core-m3-8gb-ram-128gb-ssd-13-3-quad-hd-black/p2511621 ]http://www.johnlewis.com/asus-zenbook-ux305-ultrabook-intel-core-m3-8gb-ram-128gb-ssd-13-3-quad-hd-black/p2511621[/url]

5p change from £600

I really don't see the point of going much higher than 1080p on my 17 inch laptop - it doesn't make games look better at that size - perhaps textures, but they're only just starting to hit higher resoloutions. I guess you could fit more on the page? But I'm not sure I care for that much on such a small screen.

Neither am I sure that I really give a damn about a few jaggies on text - I'd rather have better battery life which is almost always the case with lower resoloutions.

For document writing?

Yep. Ok, maybe not the fast refresh. And sRGB gamut only helps if you are doing colour documents.

But the rest matter when staring at text all day.

That sRGB gamut is wasted unless you run a fully colour managed and profiled workflow with hardware calibration (not twiddling the brightness/saturation so it looks ok) and even then it's limited compared to A1998 or DCI-P3 especially in the greens.

For photography and colour repo work yes.

But it's still useful without true calibration for other work.
e.g. I've had developers complain about colours on a UI component purely because their own monitors are crap. "Why do they want that all purple?", "It's red.", "Looks purple to me" etc

Thought I wrote another reply, but maybe never hit send.

For document work you really should go for the 1920x1200 instead of 1920x1080, the extra bit of depth makes quite a bit of difference.

2 24 1920x1200 monitors is a pretty decent setup for productivity.

Yep, agree with that. 1920x1200 you can have 2 A4 pages next to each other, with a bit room left over for menus etc.

I wouldn't go anything less for work.